|
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
And to think many on the right believe every word he utters....
Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On 12/18/09 10:09 AM, mmc wrote:
wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. The right here and elsewhere resembles the Borg collective. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 10:09*am, "mmc" wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:09:09 -0500, "mmc" wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. It's good to see y'all are such ardent Hannity fans. -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:33:26 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote: "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Wonder what else got dicked up. -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:33:26 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote: "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve That's rich? The distance between Geneva to Copenhagen is about the same as Salt Lake to Hayden Lake. You'd be real comfy there. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 10:44*am, John H wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:33:26 -0800, "Steve B" wrote: "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message .... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. *That's rich. Steve Wonder what else got dicked up. -- You. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 11:33*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. *That's rich. Steve- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, yeah, typical right winger, attack the messenger instead of the message. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 18, 11:33 am, "Steve B" wrote: "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, yeah, typical right winger, attack the messenger instead of the message. And aren't you attacking the "messenger" in this case? |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 11:43*am, "D.Duck" wrote:
Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 18, 11:33 am, "Steve B" wrote: "Frogwatch" wrote in message .... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message .... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. *That's rich. Steve- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, yeah, typical right winger, attack the messenger instead of the message. And aren't you attacking the "messenger" in this case?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No. There was no message. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:43:49 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 18, 11:33 am, "Steve B" wrote: "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, yeah, typical right winger, attack the messenger instead of the message. And aren't you attacking the "messenger" in this case? LOL! -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
In article ,
says... "mmc" wrote in message g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. Mmm, as the only one of two people who'll converse with me, and a woman at that, I really, really like it when you but those righties in their place. -- And now...back to flajim and others who are so obsessed with me, they use my handle here. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mmc" wrote in message g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are bought and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train. Paul is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2. Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed to have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$ into the Rep/Dem beauty contests. I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country with one other group instead of two. Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and FOX, you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle - otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away. Politics in this country has become a battleground where mud slinging, lies about the opposition and fake campaign promises are the weapons. It's disgusting. We need to be strong but empathetic; we need corporate America but it cannot be allowed to run the country; we need to take care of our old and poor that cannot help themselves, anyone young enough and able should work if they want to eat; the "Octo-mom" does NOT have the right to tax money to use her vagina as a clown car. These are things I believe. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:54:01 -0500, "mmc" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mmc" wrote in message g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are bought and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train. Paul is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2. Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed to have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$ into the Rep/Dem beauty contests. I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country with one other group instead of two. Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and FOX, you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle - otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away. i can report that your last statement is complete bull****. I prayed for Obama to be the candidate because he talked about pursuing the things that we 80% could do together. The things that could strengthen our country that most of us agree upon. Look what happened. We vote in a concilliator, the Republicans do *everything within their power" to thwart what the majority of Americans voted him into power to accomplish. How are we supposed to react? "Please sir, give me some more?" They may all be bought and paid for but the Republicans seem to be working for the truly evil... |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On 12/18/09 5:02 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... Yours? Hannity's Hannity's guest? Wouldn't you be better off commenting on the models of lawn and garden tractors husqvarna manufactures? Remember your insistence that the model of husqvarna tractor that sits in my garage is non-existent? Or your claim that Etecs produce gas mileage about 50% better than competing four stroke engines? Or your way over the top claims that the sensors in 4/3rds system cameras outproduce those in cameras with full-frame sensors? Or your endless denial of science? You should consider moving to south carolina as soon as possible, so as to better fit in with your fellow science denying flatlanders. These days, you make no more sense than your buddy JustHate or his BFF, Loogy. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 5:02*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... Why? It's actually spot on. Have you ever heard of an unknown? |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:52:58 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: No. There was no message. LOL!! Dude - the Hannity screed was one huge blast against a messenger. Look, you're on the wrong side of this issue - you know it, you just don't want to accept it. The "science" isn't "settled" because it's based on a fraudulent premise with amateur data mining done by amateur programmers to fit an agenda that created a job worth millions. Your guys have been proven wrong on so many climate issues that it should be embarrassing. And please don't do your usual prove a negative schtick - it's really old. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On 12/18/09 5:13 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:52:58 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: No. There was no message. LOL!! Dude - the Hannity screed was one huge blast against a messenger. Look, you're on the wrong side of this issue - you know it, you just don't want to accept it. Tom-Tom's trying to bull his way through the china shoppe. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"jps" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:54:01 -0500, "mmc" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mmc" wrote in message g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are bought and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train. Paul is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2. Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed to have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$ into the Rep/Dem beauty contests. I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country with one other group instead of two. Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and FOX, you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle - otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away. i can report that your last statement is complete bull****. I know, you must be right and they must be wrong! Afraid of the competition? I like Paul because he's a real conservative, not what passes for conservative nowadays. "Please sir, give me some more?" Actually, if the Dem leaders are going to play against the Reps they should eat more red meat. As rare as possible. Reid and Pelosi are the definition of wimps. Some have the testicular fortitude to stand up, like Grayson, but not the top dogs. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
|
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 5:52*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article m, says... "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. As does the left... so what. Folks who believe in American Values stick together, what's your point?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh, yes, only the right wants whats good for the citizens and the country. The left want to kill babies and hate the country. Same old song and dance. (Aerosmith!) |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... Sounds reasonable and rational. And you don't agree. That's not a great surprise. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... I think that was probably a mis-quote.... I don't think *anybody*, except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause of "global warming." That's certainly a mis-quote. No one on the left in this group is stupid enough to assume man is singularly responsible for global warming. Maybe a global warming believer on the right said it? Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just stupid. It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is whether man can create a tipping point. If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on..... Some politicians specialize in getting in the way. I think they've been referred to as the party of obstruction... |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:45:00 -0500, "mmc" wrote:
"jps" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:54:01 -0500, "mmc" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mmc" wrote in message g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are bought and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train. Paul is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2. Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed to have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$ into the Rep/Dem beauty contests. I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country with one other group instead of two. Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and FOX, you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle - otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away. i can report that your last statement is complete bull****. I know, you must be right and they must be wrong! Afraid of the competition? I like Paul because he's a real conservative, not what passes for conservative nowadays. I'd welcome the competition, especially if it were truly from the left since all these ****ers who occupy DC are patsies for business. No one has the people's business in mind. Second, you took the meaning of my response and twisted it. I was in favor of Obama because he was so interested in using what we could all agree on to break the partisan cycle. Evidently, anyone left of Musolini didn't get the memo. "Please sir, give me some more?" Actually, if the Dem leaders are going to play against the Reps they should eat more red meat. As rare as possible. Reid and Pelosi are the definition of wimps. Some have the testicular fortitude to stand up, like Grayson, but not the top dogs. I don't agree on Pelosi, Reid I'd like to kick in the nuts to see if it hurt. I don't think he has any. Grayson could certainly never get anything done, given his polarizing rhetoric. I love him but he's not the guy you want negotiating the deal. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mmc" wrote in message g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are bought and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train. Paul is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2. Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed to have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$ into the Rep/Dem beauty contests. I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country with one other group instead of two. Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and FOX, you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle - otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away. Politics in this country has become a battleground where mud slinging, lies about the opposition and fake campaign promises are the weapons. It's disgusting. We need to be strong but empathetic; we need corporate America but it cannot be allowed to run the country; we need to take care of our old and poor that cannot help themselves, anyone young enough and able should work if they want to eat; the "Octo-mom" does NOT have the right to tax money to use her vagina as a clown car. These are things I believe. He doesn't stand a chance because rational people know that what he's been promoting is just plain dumb, won't work, and is ridicules on the face of it. I'd be happy to see a viable 3rd party. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity. Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo. Accu-Weather can be replaced. Plenty of other weather outfits. --Vic |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 8:42*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" Didn't we just go through this a while back with the ozone layer? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! THE SKY IS FALLING! I can and do believe that there was some causality the ozone layer. *But this thing about carbon dioxide is just a way to transfer wealth under the guise of doing good. *Nothing is going to change. *We're just going to give some poor countries money we don't have so they can have token pollution control. *It's that simple. Steve And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 7:02*pm, John H wrote:
And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there. Oh, man! You got that right, John! i see 'em all the time! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlutmu-xiI |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" Didn't we just go through this a while back with the ozone layer? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! THE SKY IS FALLING! I can and do believe that there was some causality the ozone layer. But this thing about carbon dioxide is just a way to transfer wealth under the guise of doing good. Nothing is going to change. We're just going to give some poor countries money we don't have so they can have token pollution control. It's that simple. Steve |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... I think that was probably a mis-quote.... No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate. I don't think *anybody*, except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause of "global warming." Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine. Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just stupid. Yep. It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is whether man can create a tipping point. Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce. If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on..... The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do - he just wants to get the science right. Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is - the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say "hey - wait a minute". |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"John H" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 8:42 pm, "Steve B" wrote: "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" Didn't we just go through this a while back with the ozone layer? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! THE SKY IS FALLING! I can and do believe that there was some causality the ozone layer. But this thing about carbon dioxide is just a way to transfer wealth under the guise of doing good. Nothing is going to change. We're just going to give some poor countries money we don't have so they can have token pollution control. It's that simple. Steve And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there. reply: I lived through the Viet Nam era. Graduated high school in 1966. GI's were coming back with a lot of talk about unilaterilism, one world government, survivalism, stocking up arms and ammo, having a self sustaining lifestyle, and all manner of kook things. Mostly anti-government, conspiracies, and the world run by a few fat old men in back rooms smoking cigars and chanting Templar incantations. Now they don't seem so kooky. Steve |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:27:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... I think that was probably a mis-quote.... No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate. I don't think *anybody*, except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause of "global warming." Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine. Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just stupid. Yep. It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is whether man can create a tipping point. Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce. If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on..... The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do - he just wants to get the science right. Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is - the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say "hey - wait a minute". You'll wait for honest data while realists watch the polar caps melt. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
"jps" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:45:00 -0500, "mmc" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:54:01 -0500, "mmc" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mmc" wrote in message g.com... "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote: "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... And to think many on the right believe every word he utters.... Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He made a statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was supposed to be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of AccuWeather on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a manner that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was asked by Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this record cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The weather guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean anything like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data suggesting that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on warming. We just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but that was from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the subject of course. One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability to stick together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line. Copenhagen, not Geneva. reply: Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation. Geneva. That's rich. Steve Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the political stick. Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even possible politically. He's a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are bought and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train. Paul is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2. Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed to have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$ into the Rep/Dem beauty contests. I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country with one other group instead of two. Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and FOX, you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle - otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away. i can report that your last statement is complete bull****. I know, you must be right and they must be wrong! Afraid of the competition? I like Paul because he's a real conservative, not what passes for conservative nowadays. I'd welcome the competition, especially if it were truly from the left since all these ****ers who occupy DC are patsies for business. No one has the people's business in mind. Second, you took the meaning of my response and twisted it. I was in favor of Obama because he was so interested in using what we could all agree on to break the partisan cycle. Evidently, anyone left of Musolini didn't get the memo. "Please sir, give me some more?" Actually, if the Dem leaders are going to play against the Reps they should eat more red meat. As rare as possible. Reid and Pelosi are the definition of wimps. Some have the testicular fortitude to stand up, like Grayson, but not the top dogs. I don't agree on Pelosi, Reid I'd like to kick in the nuts to see if it hurt. I don't think he has any. Grayson could certainly never get anything done, given his polarizing rhetoric. I love him but he's not the guy you want negotiating the deal. I'm not talking about competition from the left, but from the cernter. I think many Americans have a desire for a balance in Gov't but there is no party to address this balance and they end up in the camp that comes closest to thier own beliefs. I voted for Obama, as much to break the Bush rut as because I liked his message. Not having a moderate party I end up voting for the candidate I like better, which is different than voting for my actual choice. During the first Iraqi eletion I heard Americans laughing about there being something like 60 candidates for president. My immediate response to that was why can't we have this? Why do we have to choose between 2 mediocre guys that barrage us with repetative speeches? That's all we really get, the primaries are a popularity contest within the top ******s in each party and a chance for them to get some publicity for themselves. We really have no say in this so by the time it gets to us we get a choice of beauty queen A or beauty queen B and the better lier/story teller gets the job. I think many Dems have a case for Grayson because he hasn't limited his attacks to the Right, he's also gone after the Dems for being weak willed. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 10:27*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: " Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has NOT caused global warming..." Talk about stupid comments... I think that was probably a mis-quote.... No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate. I don't think *anybody*, except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause of "global warming." Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine. Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just stupid. Yep. It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is whether man can create a tipping point. Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce. If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on..... The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do - he just wants to get the science right. Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is - the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say "hey - wait a minute". Right. The only "honest science" is the science that perfectly fits the right wing agenda in your eyes. |
This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
On Dec 18, 5:13*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:52:58 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: No. There was no message. LOL!! Dude - the Hannity screed was one huge blast against a messenger. No. Not at all. It was an actual dialogue between Hannity and the Accuweather founder. Look, you're on the wrong side of this issue - you know it, you just don't want to accept it. The "science" isn't "settled" because it's based on a fraudulent premise with amateur data mining done by amateur programmers to fit an agenda that created a job worth millions. *Your guys have been proven wrong on so many climate issues that it should be embarrassing. And please don't do your usual prove a negative schtick - it's really old. Every time someone here shows you actual data that shows FOR A FACT the direct correlation between CO2 levels and warming trends you sweep it under the carpet, saying that the only "honest science" is that the fits your right wing agenda. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com